| Published July 18, 2025
Donald Trump has sued Rupert Murdoch and two Wall Street Journal newspaper reporters for libel and slander over claims that he sent the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a lewd letter on the latter’s 50th birthday and sketch of a naked woman
📰 1. The WSJ bombshell
-
The Wall Street Journal’s so-called “bombshell” about Donald Trump sending Jeffrey Epstein a bawdy birthday note is being viewed in right-leaning circles as deliberately misleading, politically motivated, and ultimately hollow. The document, revealed in the newly unsealed Epstein files, contains no evidence of misconduct—just a brief, cheeky note from Trump congratulating Epstein on his 50th birthday and joking about “wonderful secrets.”
🔻 1. No Context, Just Innuendo
The WSJ framed the letter in a way that implies deeper connections between Trump and Epstein, even though the letter is dated before Epstein’s crimes were widely known. The right sees this as a classic tactic: use vague insinuations to create guilt by association, despite the absence of any criminal implication.
🔻 2. A Distraction from Epstein’s Real Clients
This sensationalized focus on Trump diverts attention from the more damning revelations in the Epstein files—notably the dozens of names of high-level global elites who were repeatedly involved with Epstein, including Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, and former intelligence operatives. Right-leaning critics argue that the left-leaning media and political class are trying to shield their own by turning the spotlight onto Trump instead.
🔻 3. Weaponization of Legacy Media
The timing and tone of the WSJ article suggests coordination with broader media and political agendas aimed at discrediting Trump ahead of the 2024 election cycle. Many conservatives argue that this is not journalism, but election interference, similar to how the Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed while every unproven claim against Trump was amplified.
🔻 4. Murdoch Media Turning on Trump
The fact that WSJ—a Murdoch-owned outlet—published this report underscores a growing rift between Trump and parts of the traditional conservative establishment. Right-wing voices see this as further proof that corporate media, even on the right, are no longer trustworthy and have become part of the same elite system Trump has long opposed.
🔻 5. Trump’s Response: Hitting Back with a Lawsuit
Trump’s lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch sends a strong message: he will not let false narratives go unanswered. His legal action frames the article as defamatory, misleading, and intentionally harmful—a move that conservatives applaud as a rare example of holding media power to account.
🚨 2. Trump’s reaction & immediate fallout
-
💥 Trump Fires Back
Donald Trump’s reaction to the Wall Street Journal‘s coverage was swift and defiant. He slammed the article as a smear, filed a defamation lawsuit against the WSJ and Rupert Murdoch, and accused the media of knowingly pushing false narratives to damage his 2024 campaign. His legal team labeled the reporting as “malicious,” arguing that it took a harmless, decades-old note and twisted it into something scandalous—with zero evidence of criminality or improper conduct.
🗣️ “They know I had nothing to do with Epstein, and they printed it anyway. This is election interference, plain and simple.” – Trump, via campaign spokesperson
⚠️ Media Panic or Media Playbook?
Conservatives argue this is part of the standard media playbook: wait for a critical election moment, cherry-pick a document, drop it as a “bombshell,” and let left-leaning outlets and influencers do the rest. But this time, Trump isn’t just pushing back rhetorically—he’s taking legal action, signaling a more aggressive strategy to fight media disinformation.
📉 Fallout & Conservative Reactions
-
Trump’s base rallied immediately, seeing the article as more proof that the establishment will stop at nothing to prevent his return to office.
-
Prominent right-leaning voices on X (Twitter) and podcasts like Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk blasted the WSJ, calling it a “sellout rag” and accusing Murdoch of sabotaging the MAGA movement.
-
The incident has further soured conservative trust in legacy outlets, even those previously considered center-right.
-
-
🔁 Backfire Potential
Rather than damaging Trump, the move may have energized his supporters and highlighted the very media corruption and elitism he campaigns against. It’s a narrative conservatives know well: Trump under attack not because he did something wrong—but because he threatens those who do.
⚖️ 3. Trump sues
-
Donald Trump’s decision to sue the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over their coverage of his letter to Jeffrey Epstein is being seen by right-leaning circles as a bold and necessary move to expose the media’s role in political manipulation. The lawsuit sends a clear message: Trump is done playing defense against false, politically timed attacks disguised as journalism.
⚖️ The Lawsuit: A Shot Across the Bow
Trump’s legal filing accuses the WSJ of:
-
Defamation: Publishing material that knowingly misrepresents Trump’s relationship with Epstein.
-
Malicious intent: Releasing the “bawdy” birthday letter without context to imply scandal where none exists.
-
Election interference: Using the timing of the story to influence public perception during a critical political season.
This isn’t just about reputation—it’s about power, truth, and accountability. The lawsuit positions Trump as taking on not only political opponents but the billionaire media elite, including Rupert Murdoch, who once supported him but is now seen as part of the establishment machine.
🧩 The Bigger Picture: Controlled Narratives
To many conservatives, this is not just one bad article—it’s part of a coordinated media ecosystem that protects Democrat-aligned elites while attempting to destroy political threats like Trump. Despite no criminal conduct in the letter, the WSJ chose to amplify it as if it were explosive. Meanwhile, actual Epstein clients with confirmed flight logs and accusations are barely mentioned in mainstream press.
🔁 “If Trump had been guilty of anything real, they wouldn’t need to invent scandals out of thin air.” – Common right-leaning sentiment online
🧨 Murdoch & Conservative Media in Crisis
Rupert Murdoch’s name in the lawsuit matters. For many on the right, it symbolizes how the old guard of corporate conservatism is distancing itself from the populist America First movement. Murdoch’s outlets—WSJ, Fox News, New York Post—are increasingly viewed as controlled opposition trying to steer the conservative base away from Trump and back toward “safe,” establishment GOP figures.
📢 Why It Matters: A Line in the Sand
This legal challenge is about more than personal defense—it’s about:
-
Challenging narrative control
-
Forcing retractions or admissions from powerful media institutions
-
Setting precedent for how false insinuations are handled moving forward
In Trump’s words (paraphrased by allies):
“They tried to smear me with a birthday card. Now they’ll have to answer for it—in court.” -
📂 4. DOJ moves on Epstein materials
-
The recent activity by the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s unsealed documents has triggered sharp criticism and deep suspicion from right-leaning observers. Rather than signaling a breakthrough in justice, many on the right view the DOJ’s move as too little, too late—or worse, a controlled operation to protect the elite while targeting political enemies.
⚠️ The Real Question: Why Now?
After years of inaction and sealed records, why is the DOJ suddenly active? To conservatives, the timing feels calculated:
-
Trump is surging in polls.
-
Media narratives are losing steam.
-
Biden’s scandals (e.g., Hunter Biden, foreign business dealings) are escalating.
So the Epstein files are revisited, but only the parts that can be twisted to hurt Trump are emphasized—like the trivial birthday letter. Meanwhile, actual Epstein associates with real accusations are still being protected.
🗣️ “They want us to think they’re pursuing justice. In reality, they’re just running PR damage control.”
🧾 Selective Release of Names
The DOJ and cooperating courts have unsealed hundreds of pages of documents—but many names remain redacted, and the most high-profile Democrats, celebrities, and international figures have faced no legal consequences whatsoever.
Right-leaning commentators are calling this a whitewash, where:
-
Inconvenient names are shielded.
-
Trump is framed by association (with zero evidence of wrongdoing).
-
The victims are re-traumatized without justice.
This reinforces the belief that America operates under a two-tiered justice system, where elites are immune and enemies of the establishment are relentlessly pursued.
🔍 No Grand Jury, No Raids, No Charges
Despite years of witness testimony, flight logs, and financial records:
-
No grand juries have indicted any of Epstein’s clients.
-
No dawn raids, no media stings, no arrests like we’ve seen with Trump allies.
-
The DOJ has shown more aggression toward parents at school board meetings or peaceful protesters than toward the powerful men tied to Epstein’s network.
This leads right-leaning voices to conclude that Epstein’s client list is being protected, not prosecuted.
🧠 The Perception: Controlled Exposure, Not Real Justice
Many conservatives now believe the Epstein scandal is being managed—not investigated. The DOJ is selectively releasing documents to appear transparent, while in reality:
-
They control the narrative.
-
They protect the politically connected.
-
They use distraction tactics (like Trump’s letter) to steer the story.
-
Implications:
Here are the key implications of the Trump–Epstein birthday letter scandal, broken into legal, political, and media impact categories
1. Weaponized Journalism & Media Collusion
Right-leaning readers may view the Wall Street Journal’s decision to highlight Trump’s “bawdy” birthday letter to Epstein as part of a coordinated smear campaign—not journalism. Despite no criminal implication in the letter, the timing of its release (during a contentious election cycle) appears designed to associate Trump with Epstein to damage his credibility.
2. Selective Outrage & Hypocrisy
While the media obsessively covers a light-hearted letter from Trump, actual evidence of abuse involving elites like Bill Clinton or high-level figures on Epstein’s flight logs remains downplayed. This double standard reinforces the belief that the media shields Democrats while targeting Trump.
3. No Evidence of Wrongdoing
The letter included in the Epstein documents doesn’t show Trump engaging in criminal behavior—yet legacy outlets spin it to create guilt by association. This tactic appears similar to prior efforts (e.g., the Russia hoax, January 6 narratives) to distract from Biden administration failures and shift the public’s attention toward Trump scandals.
4. Defamation Lawsuit Exposes Media Overreach
Trump’s lawsuit against WSJ and Rupert Murdoch signals a pushback against media misrepresentation. The right sees this as necessary to hold powerful outlets accountable for knowingly misleading the public, especially when false narratives can impact elections.
5. Epstein Disclosures Used as Political Tools
Instead of thoroughly investigating Epstein’s global network and the powerful people involved, right-leaning critics argue that only politically convenient names are spotlighted—Trump being the primary target. This gives the impression that Epstein’s victims are being used to settle political scores, rather than to pursue real justice.
Overall Takeaway:
The release of Trump’s light-hearted birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein and the ensuing media frenzy are seen by many on the right as yet another orchestrated hit job—a desperate attempt to tie Trump to a convicted predator without evidence of wrongdoing. Despite no criminal connection, corporate media and political operatives have cherry-picked this letter to fuel election-year narratives and distract from deeper truths, including the real list of Epstein’s powerful clients—many of whom remain protected. Trump’s lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal is not just about defamation—it’s about drawing a line in the sand against media abuse, political targeting, and the weaponization of the press.
